Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 2, 2010 6:00pm-6:30pm PST

7:00 pm
7:01 pm
7:02 pm
7:03 pm
7:04 pm
discretionary review. and 7c is a question for variance from planning code section 132.
7:05 pm
item 8 is case 2010.0676c, 445-447 sutter street, request for conditional use authorization for a massage establishment. item 9 is case number 2005.0963e, crystal springs pipeline number 2 replacement project. this is certification of the final environmental impact report. commissioners, it's my understanding that item 7, a commissioner has questions regarding it, which would pull it off of the concept calendar. with that, commissioners, you would consider items 6, 8, and the or the consent calendar.
7:06 pm
president miguel: any public comment? if not, public comment is closed, commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i questioned item 7 to be pulled. i think it would be to the benefit of everybody to have staff take us through the cases. and i have received a letter et regarding the citizenry project. perhaps staff can comment on it. this is, again, a critical issue, because on the massage parlor issue we have questioned. i received a letter i would at least like to ask staff to comment on. president miguel: so you want to pull that off? commissioner moore: yes, sir. clerk: so pulling items 7 and 8. so before you on consent would be items 6 and 9. president miguel: vice president
7:07 pm
olague? vice president olague: i was going to move to approve -- clerk: is there any public comment? if there is public comment, that would -- president miguel: i asked for public comment. clerk: ok. president miguel: you wish to comment? ok. i asked already, but come on up. [no audio] clerk: just a moment. let me make sure your mic is on. >> is that better? clerk: yes. >> good afternoon, my name is monique martin. i am a former executive director in district 11. i would like to ask the
7:08 pm
commission for a stay a item number 6 and give public comment. clerk: that would be items 6, 7, and 8 off concept. so when we call that item you can come back up. >> thank you. president miguel: that leaves tim 9. commissioner olague? vice president olague: i would like to approve, really, item nine. commissioner antonini: second. clerk: thank you. vice president olague: or certify -- clerk: yes, certify the e.i.r., for the motion for item number 9 -- [ roll call ] clerk: thank you. that item has been approved. mr. president, are you wanting to take items 6, 7 and 8 now?
7:09 pm
president miguel: why don't we take them at the beginning of the regular calendar. clerk: ok. thank you. commissioners with that, you are now, then, on commissioners questions and matters, item number 10. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i was happy to see in the president the idea of using abandoned city properties as residential dwelling units for teachers and other public employees, and i think that's a wonderful idea. however, i think it doesn't go far enough, and i have always been an advocate for a system to help us address our middle class residents, particularly those who are critical for the
7:10 pm
operation of san francisco, most notably public safety officials and others whose presence is essentially. i would like to see a system where we would perhaps have an available bonus for these people and that money would have to be applied towards housing. i think it would eliminate a lot of the problems we have on some of our items where we try to provide affordable housing or target affordable housing. this would be an additional method to be able to keep particular public safety officials in san francisco residing there and available for emergencies and available for things that might happen that are not emergencies but require their presence. i am old enough to remember it was a frequent occurrence when off-duty officers would intercept someone in a bank robbery, or other types of critical activity.
7:11 pm
you don't see it as often today because unfortunately a large majority of our officers are not san francisco residents. the same is true of firefighters, you know, and other public safety officials whose presence would be critical in an emergency situation. it would be a situation where you wouldn't have to worry about instances like shared equity, because this would be a bonus paid each year and if for some reason they were to move, that would have been that bonus for that period of time. but it would have to be used towards rent or purchases of a residence. so just an idea thrown out there as we grapple with the problems, keeping our middle class in san francisco and most notably those to whom we need their presence this hours a day, often. president miguel: commissioner
7:12 pm
sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, from a business times article from the 10th to 16th, oakland to streamline project approvals. it says part of an update to oakland's general plan, city drafters drafted an e.i.r. that would address most of the areas available for residential development as part of their general plan update, i guess. it says the document should clear most of the groundwork developers typically have to do to gain approval and some developers may not have to do any e.i.r.'s and some only have to do supplemental, rather than a full one. the planning commission discussed it a december have differs ever does 15 this and public comment is open today. more information from staff? >> i think, because i saw that same article, it's essentially
7:13 pm
the equivalent of a neighborhood-planned e.i.r. which allows projects to do what we call community planning exemption. in some cases those projects would have to do a supplemental or what we sometimes call focus e.i.r. i think that's it. but i will confirm it. commissioner sugaya: thank you. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i am glad to see a term sheet was submitted for the america's cup and hope we will find and ongoing dialogue about how to get the best out of that city wide planning. president miguel: since we last had public comment, i would like to mention i met with people regarding the booker t. washington project, cpmc. i was at the planning department out of the south mission
7:14 pm
surveys, the stark area, which was quite nicely attended, as far as the neighborhood was concerned, with some very intelligent information and questions and interests. had the pleasure of being a guest, again, at the neighborhood network. did a very interesting presentation this week on hope s.f. they had previously done one on the physical characteristics of the buildout. this was interesting because it did not concern the physical aspects that usually concern commissioners, but the support services that would have to be in place and that would work with the residents, work with them before, during and after, and are extremely extentsive. and they presented, did a very, very good job with that one.
7:15 pm
also last night the housing action coalition which gave this body the housing award, last year held their housing hero award for this year. and i know commissioner antonini and director rahaim were also present. this was given to three people involved in the hunter's point project. coffee bonner, michael commissioner antonini, and mike cohen, and supervisor maxwell, with a very interesting, as usual, intro by former mayor brown. and i just wanted to announce that both commissioner olague and myself were present this
7:16 pm
morning when the board of supervisor's rules committee passed the mayor's recommendation for gwennyth boarding to continue as a member of this body, and did so by committee report to be acted upon next tuesday at the full board. commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes, a couple other things, commissioner olagui, myself and commissioner martinez from the historic preservation attended a meeting with staff on the subject of social cultural heritage preservation in the city and were presented with ideas from the planning department, associated with planning going on in western soma, with respect to the filipino community in that area and also the lgbtq community.
7:17 pm
and had some interesting documents for us to review. the purpose of the meeting was to involve as much as possible, staff from eowd. the meeting as an initial kickoff went well and there will be follow-up from people. claudia from the staff who is involved in some similar things in the mission and then paul lord not only has been working in western soma, but now has been assigned to japan town. i think the scope will expand a bit and include those communities, as well. and then i also attended a saturday meeting of the south mission survey. and i think attendance was a little bit lower there, because there were some concerns from the community about not having the word out enough. so i think staff -- it was recommended to staff to continue community outreach through, perhaps, the organizations, the
7:18 pm
community organizations in that area. so i think instead of the planning department sponsoring the workshops, the idea was then to have -- to go through some of the existing organizations. so hopefully they will follow up on that. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: since we last met i met with both neighborhood groups and representatives from cal pacific medical center. neighborhood groups with concerns or questions about the booker t. washington project, and also talked with some of the sponsors for the project. of course, president miguel mentioned the housing heroes event last night. clerk: thank you commissioners, we are now -- on item 11. it's an item on calendar for your discussion and possible
7:19 pm
action for park merced. president miguel: director rahaim? >> commissioners last time you asked we had a discussion about this item because there was some concern about the scheduling of park merced, a project on the west side which is nearing a time that we would be bringing it to you for action. our current proposal to you is to have the initiation hearing. where you would initiate the code changes and the general plan amendment changes on october 21st and then have the actual hearing on the project and the co-changes on november 18th. so there would be four weeks between initiation and your actual hearing on the project. that's been our standard practice is to have at least three weeks between initiation and your hearing, because the
7:20 pm
required notice period is 20 days so your practice has been to have at least three weeks between initiation hearing. since there has been discussion of having an entitlement hearing on the 21st there was an ad placed in the newspaper this week, so on the 21st you will have to continue that item officially to the 18th when that item comes up before you. but just to reiterate, what we are now proposing is the initiation of the code, and general plan amendment on october 21st and the entitlement hearing and the certification of the e.i.r. on november 18th. and we plan to have the packets to you and the comments and responses to you, the document to you, two weeks in advance of the hearing date. president miguel: thank you. vice president olague? vice president olague: i just want to say that i am relieved
7:21 pm
to here that that has changed. the reason i requested that this item be placed on the calendar wasn't as a result of my overreacting or anything like that. i was hearing that we were going to be attempting to initiate this project on the 7th of october with an approval calendared for the following week. and i was concerned that it felt, at that point, that it was a little bit out of the hands of the planning commission. it was always my impression when it comes to big projects, the planning commission should -- i know the president clearly has a role in calendaring these items, and he represents the commission. many times in that way. but when it comes to projects of this size, i just felt like that was too much of a rush to get it through, especially given that we are in the middle of cpmc
7:22 pm
with comments due to the 19th of october. at the fairmont we are having a joint hearing at the end of october and we are hearing comments, some comments on the housing element and in the early part of october. so i just felt like this is something that this should be an issue that the commission should have some jurisdiction or say over and i felt a lot of our say was being removed from our realm and there were outside forces -- i am not saying outside, but other departments in the city that were kind of influencing it in a way that didn't feel comfortable to me. also, historically, when we -- even though it's legal to initiate one week and calendar an item for approval the next -- historically we have never done
7:23 pm
it that way. usually we calendar an item for one week and then there's a 20-day noticing period that allows members of the public to digest the information and review the information. and that sort of thing. so it just felt sort of like we were going a little bit out of what is the norm here when it came to the calendaring of this project, because of the size of this project and the level of interest that i have received from members of the public, i felt that to kind of -- what i felt we were kong rushing it through wasn't appropriate in this case. that's why i felt we needed to discuss it here. i guess the calendaring of items is one we might want to discuss when we discuss commissioners' rules in the future so that we can avoid these types of
7:24 pm
situations and have a more, maybe more process when it comes to some of these issues that are of great issue to the public as they are discussed here. then there was a lot of controversy, because i know there was some political implications. i know, that were written about in the "guardian" around park mersed and certain offices in the city. people were calling me with those kinds of concerns. i didn't want the public to get the impression we were favoring one project over other projects. that's why i thought we needed to disclose and make it apparent here that we had the best interests of the public in mind and that we're not swayed by political interests, and whatever. i just thought we needed to have a public hearing about it.
7:25 pm
president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: other comments i received, that this is the largest rezoning project for a very large part of the city which does not have much identification at this moment. and since this will affect a large number of people. not just the park merced neighbors themselves. people felt that compared to market octavio and the eastern neighborhood, nobody else was asked to comment or participate in any kind of neighborhood considerations. based on that, i would be very much in support of it. i would also say that very view people realize what it takes if you honestly dedicate yourself to looking at an e.i.r. there are thousands of pages, and why i myself pay particular attention to a large percentage of particular issues, there's hardly anybody who has as much time to do this pro jess
7:26 pm
justice. i believe particularly this year and other people have confirmed that to me, the planning department seems to be crammed with major projects in a way there is no precedent in previous years. that puts not only a burden on us -- and i don't want to complain -- but i do believe it does the public unjustice to participate in the manner that public comment is encouraged and we look for a broader vision than what we bring ourselves to those discussions. so i am actually interested in seeing all of us take a broader look and continue to look at the potentially longer term of deciding these issued. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: , yeah, i might be somewhat ignore rant of the process that's been used in this whole park merced rezoning and general plan, or whatever we are considering, the e.i.r.
7:27 pm
process. it's singularly different than processes undertaken by the department, i think, since this is a single developer-driven project. even though it's a large area, it isn't as though the department were the ones that staff went out and conducted public meetings, and got public input and tried to craft a plan that met the needs of the community, so to speak. so i don't see why there's a big hurry here. even the schedule that's been put out seems to be somewhat contracted process. and i don't know if the department has had an opportunity to go out and conduct its own community meetings out there, based on what the developer has put forth or not. if not, i think that kind of time should be allowed as part of the planning process for this
7:28 pm
area. so even though what commissioner olague said in terms of the original proposals has now been extended out, i still think it's too short. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i am glad to see we have so many larger projects before us, particularly at a time when the economy is not at its best. that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it completely, but it's a good sign we have these things happen. i am confused there was mention made of a 20-day period between the initial day and final action, is that, in fact, the case? >> the code requires a 20-day notification.
7:29 pm
not the newspaper. your practice has been that you would initiate 21 days or three weeks in advance because of that required identification. your initiation three weeks in advance is technically, legally not required, but been your practice for a number of years, because of the newspaper notice going out. commissioner antonini: so with that in mind i think the modifications made are good ones. i guess it would have been noticed that there would be a hearing on the -- maybe it wasn't the 21st but a day fairly soon that would be the action day, also. >> it was notified that you would take action on the project on the 21st. that will not happen for another four weeks, so we will have to continue that on the 21st. >> and i would -- you know, it seems like this is reasonable, assuming there are no particular, i wouldn't think this would be the case, funding


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on